Default full screen

Default full screen

Post by Stefan Monnie » Thu, 31 May 2001 00:57:24




> Also, the docs say:
> ,----
> | `default-frame-alist' is an alias for `default-frame-plist',a simple
> |    built-in variable.
> |
> | Value: (width 80 height 55)
> |
> | Documentation:
> | Obsolete; use `default-frame-plist' instead.
> `----
> So should we be using -plist instead of -alist?

Ask the XEmacs guys.  I still have no clue why they decided to
create those *-plist variables and to even make them the preferred way.
Worse yet, the two variables are aliased, so now *-alist can contain
something of a different shape than what it used to contain.

This is really very strange to me and I'm thoroughly puzzled.

It's a lot of pain and potential breakage for little (if any) gain.
At least, I can't think of any advantage of plists over alists except
that '(a 1 b 2) is a bit shorter than '((a . 1) (b . 2)).

It's not the first time I ask why this change was made, but since I still
haven't gotten any answer...

        Stefan

 
 
 

Default full screen

Post by Hrvoje Niksi » Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:29:29



Quote:> Ask the XEmacs guys.  I still have no clue why they decided to
> create those *-plist variables and to even make them the preferred
> way.

It was probably considered that plists were more "modern" or something
like that.  The documentation also mentions that it is more usual to
modify plists in-place, whether it is normally not done with alists.
I don't know if that's actually the case.  Then there is the symmetry
with symbol and extent properties which are stored in plists.

The point is, the interface was changing anyway, so the developers at
the time probably considered it worthy to make the change.

Quote:> Worse yet, the two variables are aliased, so now *-alist can contain
> something of a different shape than what it used to contain.

XEmacs internals can recognize both types of usage.  If you're
consistent in setting default-frame-alist or default-frame-plist,
either should work.

Quote:> It's not the first time I ask why this change was made, but since I
> still haven't gotten any answer...

That's the best I can give.  As I said, I wasn't around in 19.12 times
when these changes were made.

 
 
 

Default full screen

Post by Stefan Monnie » Wed, 06 Jun 2001 05:08:57




>> Ask the XEmacs guys.  I still have no clue why they decided to
>> create those *-plist variables and to even make them the preferred way.
> It was probably considered that plists were more "modern" or something
> like that.  The documentation also mentions that it is more usual to
> modify plists in-place, whether it is normally not done with alists.

I guess that's a fair point.

Quote:> I don't know if that's actually the case.  Then there is the symmetry
> with symbol and extent properties which are stored in plists.

I would have preferred to switch to alist for them ;-)

Quote:>> Worse yet, the two variables are aliased, so now *-alist can contain
>> something of a different shape than what it used to contain.
> XEmacs internals can recognize both types of usage.  If you're
> consistent in setting default-frame-alist or default-frame-plist,
> either should work.

The problems show up when a package tries to fiddle with
default-frame-alist, expecting an alist and finding unexpected elements.

Quote:> That's the best I can give.  As I said, I wasn't around in 19.12 times
> when these changes were made.

I hadn't realized it was such an old change.
I guess the problems I mention just above aren't very significant, then.

        Stefan

 
 
 

Default full screen

Post by Kyle Jon » Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:10:32




 > > Also, the docs say:
 > > ,----
 > > | `default-frame-alist' is an alias for `default-frame-plist',a simple
 > > |    built-in variable.
 > > |
 > > | Value: (width 80 height 55)
 > > |
 > > | Documentation:
 > > | Obsolete; use `default-frame-plist' instead.
 > > `----
 > > So should we be using -plist instead of -alist?
 >
 > Ask the XEmacs guys.  I still have no clue why they decided to
 > create those *-plist variables and to even make them the preferred way.
 > Worse yet, the two variables are aliased, so now *-alist can contain
 > something of a different shape than what it used to contain.
 >
 > This is really very strange to me and I'm thoroughly puzzled.
 >
 > It's a lot of pain and potential breakage for little (if any) gain.
 > At least, I can't think of any advantage of plists over alists except
 > that '(a 1 b 2) is a bit shorter than '((a . 1) (b . 2)).
 >
 > It's not the first time I ask why this change was made, but since I still
 > haven't gotten any answer...

I asked years ago and there wasn't any good reason.  One of the
developers liked plists more than alists.  This change happened
way back in 19.12 or 19.13 I think.

 
 
 

1. Default full screen

Hi!

Can someone tell me how to make my Emacs full screen as default? So far I made
an alias in .bashrc using -geometry, but I'd rather do it through my .emacs
file.

Thanks
Jesper

2. Converting D64 images to native C64 disks

3. full screen with xemacs

4. ICS problem - client gets dumped at login

5. Running full screen program like vi from xemacs shell window

6. PDF Files

7. full screen Xemacs

8. Full Screen Emacs

9. Full screen emacs

10. why doesn't Emacs cover the full screen?

11. SOURCES FOR UNIX FULL SCREEN EDITORS